PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Peak Uranium
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6457
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UndercoverElephant wrote:
We cannot safely assume that our grandchildren will be in any position to clear up our mess.

This is worth starting a new topic on, but also a lesson to be learned here.

There are around 10,000 shipwrecks around the British coast that could contain oil and other toxic materials. Ships from WW2 are expected to start leaking after 60 plus years underwater. Plus all the ships sunk in other parts of the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010drl1

Any mess we leave around is liable to come back and bite future generations.
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
The decision of the regulators 40 years ago will be reviewed. Obviously it was wrong, with 20/20 hindsight.


The problem with nuclear is that the consequences can be so dire that we have to contemplate the worst possible situation and then double it. We have to think the unthinkable.

What is the cost of a city and 1250 sq miles of land contaminated for thousands of years? And what would have been the cost if it had been a UK reactor?

Quote:
There is no point in surmising how or why it was wrong until a review has been conducted. There should be a solid document trail.

Only then can sensible lessons be learnt.


You meddle with nuclear at your peril?

Quote:
Quote:
Compared to CO2 and nuclear waste, the legacy of all renewables is largely inconsequential.
Apart from the potential to ruin western economies.


Fukushima has possibly ruined the Japanese economy and that could carry over into the world economy. We will see; it's not over yet by any means. We have no idea if we have seen the worst of the situation yet.

What good are all the riches in the world if we have to live in a plexiglass bubble, Inspector? That's the trouble with the Nuclear Lobby, it's all about money and BAU. Evil or Very Mad
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Inspector Calls wrote:
Obviously it was wrong, with 20/20 hindsight.


You know what? Some of us had foresight; we didn't need to rely on hindsight. 40 years ago we were campaigning against nuclear power. We were right.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JohnB wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:
The decision of the regulators 40 years ago will be reviewed. Obviously it was wrong, with 20/20 hindsight.

There is no point in surmising how or why it was wrong until a review has been conducted. There should be a solid document trail.

Only then can sensible lessons be learnt.

So are you saying that decisions made today won't be wrong with hindsight?


They are designing our new UK crop of nuclear reactors on the basis of about 600mm of sea level rise by 2100. They won't be around to clean up the mess should that be a low estimate so, as the Inspector has said, who cares!! Twisted Evil
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
RGR
Banned


Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2011
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="kenneal"]

Last edited by RGR on Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:

They are designing our new UK crop of nuclear reactors on the basis of about 600mm of sea level rise by 2100.
Is that really true? If so they aren't going to get planning permission. The Environment Agency is using a figure of 1.2m rise by 2010 as a possibility when designing the engineering works for the Lincolnshire sea defences.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RGR wrote:

I'm betting people will choose to live with those consequences,


Choice by the people is only valid if the people have the information.

Take a look at this site, which is paid for by the German Government:
http://fukushima.grs.de/

The German public are being kept much better informed about Fukushima that the Uk's, both by Government and the main stream media. The German people are deciding to halt their nuclear programme.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:
Obviously it was wrong, with 20/20 hindsight.


You know what? Some of us had foresight; we didn't need to rely on hindsight. 40 years ago we were campaigning against nuclear power. We were right.


Possibly, but your brand of foresight extends to banning all economic forms of power generation in favour of expensive renewables - that's why you, in turn, support the concept of peak oil. And really, that's not any form of intelligent foresight, it's just ill-informed dogma mixed with a generous helping of happenstance.

A lot of people think your approach is wrong. As RGR says, people would rather have their lifestyle, health, longevity, plentiful food, warmth and comfort than horrible energy starvation. Energy starvation and this brave-new-world that you're all building for will, in reallity, be one of lawlessness and banditry; you're forgetting the single most important thing you'll need - weapons, and a knowledge of how to use them. Forget building your houses with PV on the roof, battery storage, and food stocks: you're just feathering the nest of the guy with the AK47.

So your scatter-gun campaigning to ban this, that, and the other (with a subsequent smug claim of hindsight) won't wash with Joe Public.

Hysterical response? Well maybe, but on the other side you're all fielding the unimaginable consequences of nuclear disaster as if it will always be inevitable every 20-30 years for all time. On the one hand you're prepared to trumpet the most trivial technological breakthrough in PV or windmill manufacture (straining at some impossible gnat of supposed economic viability) but then deny any possible improvement in nuclear technology.

I await the detailed reports from our Nuclear Inspectorate, and their thoughts on the significance of the accident for the UK nuclear build programme.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
An Inspector Calls
Banned


Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
JohnB wrote:
An Inspector Calls wrote:
The decision of the regulators 40 years ago will be reviewed. Obviously it was wrong, with 20/20 hindsight.

There is no point in surmising how or why it was wrong until a review has been conducted. There should be a solid document trail.

Only then can sensible lessons be learnt.

So are you saying that decisions made today won't be wrong with hindsight?


They are designing our new UK crop of nuclear reactors on the basis of about 600mm of sea level rise by 2100. They won't be around to clean up the mess should that be a low estimate so, as the Inspector has said, who cares!! Twisted Evil


I have previously asked you for documentation to support this claim and you have not provided it.

In fact, you probably can't, because detailed planning submissions for any next generation nuclear build has yet to be tabled.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RGR
Banned


Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2011
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="biffvernon"]

Last edited by RGR on Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RGR wrote:

Peak oilers choose to not understand the oil industry
How come the idea of peak oil came from people in the oil industry?
(I worked in the oil industry myself, once upon a time.)
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RGR wrote:
Peak oilers choose to not understand the oil industry or resource issues prior to making up fanciful scenarios.


You say that we don't understand resource issues. Then explain to me how we will get on with Chindia having a growth rate of about 10% pa. Where are the resources going to come from to support that growth rate?
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
RGR
Banned


Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2011
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="biffvernon"]

Last edited by RGR on Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
RGR
Banned


Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 2011
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="kenneal"]

Last edited by RGR on Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about the coal, steel, copper, other metals, rare earth metals, plastics, water, food? Their use of all these is increasing and their total resource use will double in seven years. If they have to transition all those to new materials in seven years they have better have some good research going on that we don't know about.

Either that or they will use their huge dollar surplus to go round the world buying up all the resources they need to keep the Chinese/ Indian people happy, leaving not much for the rest of us. Oh! Sorry. They are doing that already.

Oil isn't the only strategic resource that can effect economies that is in short supply.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group